toolonglegs wrote:I wouldn't pass a doping test ...not registered here for asmtha meds,steroids over the last week for sinus / chest...shite I would take anything offered at the moment to make me feel better!!!.

Riis was doping when he rode, so why on earth would anyone think that the team he directs would be clean? TLL, you ask "is no one clean?" Surely you know the answer yourself - probably not.

My issue is whether it really matters. The riders have access to outstanding medical assistance and know (or should know) the health risks. Also, at that level the playing field is level, in that all teams have the financial wherewithall to access the best technology. So what does it matter? If Sastre dopes, for example, was his attack that won the Tour any less of a feat, or less exciting to watch?

Doping in professional cycling is endemic - that's fairly obvious. There is a real argument to be made for letting riders have access to the technology and just letting them get on with it.

I might be paranoid, but it doesn't mean that people aren't out to get me.
08 Orbea Dauphine

der Ungar wrote:Riis was doping when he rode, so why on earth would anyone think that the team he directs would be clean? TLL, you ask "is no one clean?" Surely you know the answer yourself - probably not.

My issue is whether it really matters. The riders have access to outstanding medical assistance and know (or should know) the health risks. Also, at that level the playing field is level, in that all teams have the financial wherewithall to access the best technology. So what does it matter? If Sastre dopes, for example, was his attack that won the Tour any less of a feat, or less exciting to watch?

Doping in professional cycling is endemic - that's fairly obvious. There is a real argument to be made for letting riders have access to the technology and just letting them get on with it.

So when do we think they have had enough dope in their systems?.I think some riders are definately clean so it isn't a level playing field...if it was a free for all they would be deaths involved and I am not too keen on that.

I guess I'm sounding like an apologist for doping, and I don't really mean to be. My point is that, certainly at the elite level, riders and teams have access to cutting-edge technology and advice and can make informed decisions for themselves as to whether they dope, or ride clean.

At present, the sport is continually dragged down by scandal after scandal and we don't really know who's riding clean and who's not, which is very damaging to cycling. There is much more mainstream press about doping scandals than events and performances. Permitting doping would level the playing field and provide transparency.

I'm not arguing in favour of doping - I'm saying there's a discussion worth having about whether using performance-enhancing agents is really that much of a leap from, say, using the new Speedo swimsuit at the Olympics, or a more aerodynamic cycling helmet, or a tennis racket with a bigger head and sweet spot.

For as long as sport has existed, athletes have used fair means and foul to enhance performance. Doping is just another step, albeit maybe a step too far for many, which I completely acknowledge.

The transcript of an interview aired on Enough Rope on 29/09 is well worth a read:

I'm very new to the sport, both as a fan and (wannabe) competitor and don't mean to cause offence, but I think these discussions are important and healthy to have. And I'm genuinely interested in the views of those with much more history in the sport than I.

Cheers...Michael (now, where did I put that syringe...)

I might be paranoid, but it doesn't mean that people aren't out to get me.

Firstly cycling is the last sport that would do this, why i hear you ask? Because its the only sport that you get named even if your only under suspicion of doping or have a A sample come back postive. All other sports dont release names until a Positive has been completely established. And sometimes not even then, Cycling is in the funny position that because they actually catch dopers its considered to be a dirty sport. When in actual fact its no worse than any other and possibly cleaner than most. Tennis players arent even tested for EPO because the test is to expensive. Cycling has the toughest rules on doping ( the bans are the same but the actual tests and how quickly you get named is pretty harsh) the UCI would have to back flip hugely for it to become legal. Besides the fact that it really would be a stupid thing to do.

We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

der Ungar wrote:I'm saying there's a discussion worth having about whether using performance-enhancing agents is really that much of a leap from, say, using the new Speedo swimsuit at the Olympics, or a more aerodynamic cycling helmet, or a tennis racket with a bigger head and sweet spot.

G'Day Michael, not sure what effects a swim suit or helmet or tennis racket will have on someones health.

Drugs however will have serious health implications. Can I throw Flo Jo into the mix. Outwardly a physical specimen, inside something was wrong and death occurred at a premature age, especially for someone who "looked after herself".

No proof of anything of course, she may have had a pre-existing condition. But her times haven't even been approached, not even by an admitted drug cheat in Marion Jones who was also an absolutely dominant force.

And who will be liable if it becomes a free for all in cycling and someone dies ? The UCI, the Team, the Team Doctors, the event organisers ? not a chance.

How will the sport be able to attract sponsors if all the riders are openly taking drugs ? Look how fast they drop off every time a scandal hits the sport. And how will we be able to encourage parents to send the kids into a sport that openly dopes.

I understand where you're coming from Michael, and there have been times where I've thought along similar lines when scandal after scandal has hit cycling. But I honestly believe to open it up would kill cycling.

Cycling has to be seen to be fighting the fight. Even if it's not winning it has to keep fighting or risk becoming irrelevant as an international sport.

Go on, let 'em hit the juice. Nice level playing field once all athletes live in communal accomodation and are are monitored 24/7/365. Everyone gets the same dose and therefore the same boost. If they aint monitored, the Flandises of the world will happily bare their arm for the sanctioned hit, then go out and get some !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! on the sly. Where exactly do you draw the line.

Shaun

Is there an echo in this room?

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Mulger bill wrote:Go on, let 'em hit the juice. Nice level playing field once all athletes live in communal accomodation and are are monitored 24/7/365. Everyone gets the same dose and therefore the same boost. If they aint monitored, the Flandises of the world will happily bare their arm for the sanctioned hit, then go out and get some !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! on the sly. Where exactly do you draw the line.

Shaun

Is there an echo in this room?

Nice.

If any athlete was allowed to dope, it is no longer a sport of "fittest and best" but "who can handle more scag".

There is nothing impressive about winning when pumped up on drugs. There is nothing great about an attack when someone is doing it beyond their means. If you cant win clean, then you weren't meant to win. Really, it takes more balls to come second then it does to try and cheat a drug test, just to come first.

Hardly suprising given his always been critical of the french labs. The fact is if Armstrong was hoping his comeback was going to clear him of doping he was sorley mistaken all its done is kick the hornets nest back up. Sad that most of the dicussion on cycling at the moment is doping based.

We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

I know I'm naive and live in an ivory tower, but I would like to see Lance mount a case similar to Floyds, where he has the balls (scuze the pun) to stand up in front of the worlds media with a bunch of graphs and experts and demonstrate why the results of the re-testing of his urine do not actually demonstrate EPO usage.

Personally, I think him returning to racing with this result unexplained is perverse in the extreme.

I have a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University

A common argument is made that urine samples that are nine years old arent accurate. The point i would make is that you could leave the samples there for a hundred years they wouldnt miraclously get EPO in it naturally. In other words the dope would have to have been in there to begin with. The only argument to re-testing them is the French Labs have something againgst him. Which anyone could use. The fact is i hope they dont test them the only thing that could come out of it is one they come back negative and the Lance haters go onto something else, or they come back postive and Lance and his Fans rip the Labs and the Sport apart neither has a good outcome. My question is why do they have to ask permission, shouldnt they be able to retest without consent from Armstrong. If he did dope of cause he will so no seems very strange to me.

We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

Not sure what your trying to say, that the Schleck boys were doped and that helped Sastre ? the fact is Sastre had support at that point F. Schleck was in front in the GC so Evans had to mark him, which in hindsight he didnt have to do considering Schlecks TT. My guess Evans has lots of things his pissed about regarding the Tour most of them to do with his own team

We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

RICHARDH wrote:Not sure what your trying to say, that the Schleck boys were doped and that helped Sastre ? the fact is Sastre had support at that point F. Schleck was in front in the GC so Evans had to mark him, which in hindsight he didnt have to do considering Schlecks TT. My guess Evans has lots of things his pissed about regarding the Tour most of them to do with his own team

toolonglegs wrote:If the Schleks hadn't been there it would have been a different race...but they were so not much can be done.Suppose it is a similar situation to Rasmussen and Contador attacking and Cadel trying to follow only to blow.If the chicken hadn't have been there as he was about to be kicked off the tour would Contador of attacked (probably) but would Cadel have followed (probably not ) as Contador wasn't as much of a threat at the time.So he would have paced himself up the climb with everyone else and not lost the tour there and then.So lets not mention Flandis .

Posting at the same time, but agree with what you're saying there tll.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.